You're viewing a single thread.
Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?
Just visit https://www.gimp.org/ and compare it to https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop.html
Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?
Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?
It's so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.
Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.
How is Krita? I’m on a Mac and my biggest problem with Gimp and Inkscape has always been lack of MacOS integration. Mostly with the UI but even shortcuts were wrong when I tried it. And the mouse/trackpad gestures were the dealbreaker.
I use Pixelmator, which hopefully continues to be a well developed pay once app, even though Apple just bought them. That and Sketch get me all the design tools I need for 2D and web.
Your first problem is you're using a Mac. But beyond the obvious trolling, Krita excels at painting and is getting better at text as well -so far text tools have left to be desired but they've been working on a revamp for some years now, probably coming rather soon. What I find lacking as a daily user (I do illustration in Krita, animation in Blender) is the general image manipulation tools. Transforming, snapping, transform masks... are often either lacking in flexibility or poorly performing. I use Affinity Publisher on the side for compositing my illustrations with text for print or web, I wouldn't be able to rely on just Krita for that. But for painting, it's absolutely fantastic -performance wise, usability-wise, the shortcuts are so well thought out it's a joy to use. It's really made with painting in mind. If you like using filters, they have a good G'mic integration with hundreds of builtin filters. I can't comment on their mac builds though, you'd have to try them yourself.
I don't know about the Mac experience specifically but Krita was incredibly intuitive as someone who hasn't touched creative software in about 15 years. I downloaded it a couple of weeks ago, doodled a little, then remembered I suck at digital drawing and closed without saving
It's more of a paint program, and it's great if you have a pen and tablet. I haven't tried out gimp for while, but it was more of a photoshop alternative at that time. I think Apple's version of Krita would be Procreate, but Krita is free.
How is Krita?
I fully converted all my workflows to Krita a long time again, its amazing
Have you checked out Affinity? They support Mac and iPad, and are comparable with the core Adobe suite. Its a buy once scenario (per major version release). My only problem is they don't support Linux.
Of note, they were purchased last year by Canva, but it has been stated they will keep the Affinity products separate for purchase.
Yeah, I never got into illustration or 3d art/animation, but I sure as hell know what Blender is!
It's quite the testament that the Blender name is known to the masses (hope you don't mind me calling you the masses)
The whole skateboard community thrives on it where I'm from, especially in this age of everyone wanting their own skate vid.
Wow. For editing purposes ?
Yeah! I got a couple of them into it when people came to me asking how I do my own edits, and from there it seemed to just be word of mouth.
Thankfully I helped the first through get the basics down and they then passed that knowledge on and so forth, so it's worked out pretty well. A bunch of broke ass skaters will learn anything as long as it's free, it's why we spend most of our time falling.
Agree, however on clicking the photoshop link was first hit with 2 popups before I could see the page.
I actually like the GIMP website homepage more than the one for photoshop.
Its simple and efficient. If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
The photoshop site just looks like a random squarespace template with a bunch of stock photos.
If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined there before.
Does the latter experience sound good? Because that's how too many open-source projects present themselves, and it's to the loss of the volunteer devs and their potential user base.
Dig deeper ?
Homepage text :
The Free & Open Source Image Editor
This is the official website of the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP).
GIMP is a cross-platform image editor available for GNU/Linux, macOS, Windows and more operating systems. It is free software, you can change its source code and distribute your changes.
Whether you are a graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or scientist, GIMP provides you with sophisticated tools to get your job done. You can further enhance your productivity with GIMP thanks to many customization options and 3rd party plugins.Man, that text does the app no favours. "Image editor" could mean that it crops photos. But GIMP does a hell of a lot more. It's been "the open-source photoshop" for decades, and they're really selling themselves short. Screenshots would have made it so much easier to see what the software does.
Indeed
Yeah… I was expecting a much larger contrast. Give me the one that doesn’t start off with several popups.
I feel like the Adobe marketing is somewhat pointless. Anyone that has been in the target industries for any amount of time already know the deal.
GIMP is not Photoshop. They are not competitors. It's a difficult transition. I'm not sure we should even bother drawing a comparison.
I've used Photoshop since 1992. I know, I'm old. I started using GIMP about four years ago. I recently got to the point where I can function.
Money and momentum is a motherfucker. Adobe has fuck you money. GIMP has volunteers. Those that don't like their site should volunteer time or money.
Edit: fwiw I like the GIMP site better too.
I totally agree
You're welcome to contribute your experties.
I wish I could, but this is a systemic problem, not a problem with one individual project.
Is the mindset that anyone looking for open source, FOSS, or Linux stuff is already tech-savvy enough to know exactly what they are looking for based solely on a text description?
I think it's more so that the kind of people contributing to these projects are on balance not that interested in doing the marketing work.
Do the operating systems the contributors use not have a screenshot function?
I mean, seriously, simply highlighting a few features would make a massive difference.
I speak for all projects, not just GIMP.
These projects are run by volunteers, they don't have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does. And to be honest, it kinda seems like you're just criticizing them for no good reason. Have you personally designed and built a website that doesn't suck?
These projects are run by volunteers, they don’t have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does.
A few screenshots would be nice. Not asking them to make a high-production video intro shot on a cruise ship with RED cameras and featuring an A-list celeb.
And to be honest, it kinda seems like you’re just criticizing them for no good reason.
On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available. For me, the way many of these projects present themselves is like gatekeeping to keep people away.
Have you personally designed and built a website that doesn’t suck?
Yes, but I won't doxx myself, so there's no proof I can give you.
Regardless, as a user and someone who wants to see open-source projects succeed, my comment should only be taken as constructive criticism.
IF YOU HAVE EXPERTISE, THEN CONTRIBUTE, DAMMIT: https://developer.gimp.org/core/wgo/
They don't need somebody to tell them their site sucks. They need somebody to HELP them make it better, to DO the work that you seem to be implying is very easy! They're literally begging for it on their website.
It's like you need high-level programming training to even understand how to contribute to their project. Where's the "Edit" button, for example?
I've contributed dozens of hours to other projects (namely OpenStreetMap), but it's DEAD SIMPLE to contribute there.
On the contrary. I want to see them reach a wider audience. I want to see FOSS, Linux, and other open-source projects become more accessible and widely available
then contribute, it's called "open source" for a reason or at least raise an issue where the maintainers can see? Not on some random link aggregation platform about an announcement?
Contributing is exactly what he is doing. You dont have to make a PR to contribute to a project, he is trying to bring awareness to an issue he is passionate about. Him sparking the conversation can make waves much larger than he can manage by doing the screenshot marketing for projects himself one at a time. There are way too many projects for one person acting alone to make a real dent.
How do you contribute when there's the Wikipedia effect?
they don't have the unlimited budget for designers that Adobe does.
presses screenshot button
Ah yes, it's a good thing that the only skill required to make a nice website is taking a screenshot
Not criticizing the website design. I don't expect them to have an expensive flashy website. I am criticizing you for equating the snipping tool with having an unlimited budget for designers like adobe does. It does not take a team of designers to add a screenshot to your website showcasing a feature.
is taking a screenshot that hard?
You can if you wish. You just choose not to. Like so many of us. If more did volunteer, the problem would disappear. It's that simple.
What? There are hundreds of thousands of FOSS projects with great presentation. GIMP is the exception these days, not the rule.
For sure, I don't mean to blanket all FOSS projects under the same observation. But I've seen some projects where the idea is brilliant, and it fills a gap that no other software can, but they have piss-poor instructions (or none at all) and hardly describe what the project is or does. You only learn about them by chance, which is a real shame.
Here's another example: Navidrome (https://www.navidrome.org/) is an awesome, self-hosted music streaming software.
But their homepage doesn't have a screenshot, so you have no idea if the UI is just command prompt, ugly, unintuitive, or the best thing ever. Even the "learn more" page has no screenshots unless you really go digging.
Compare that to another FOSS self-hosted music streamer: https://ampache.org/
Simple website, but at least you can see exactly what to expect from the UI. Huge advantage even if they two apps do the exact same thing (both based on the Subsonic backend).
Basically, yes.
I mean, tastes are different, but I really did not like the photshop page design.
Taste aside, you can easily see what features Photoshop has, rather than guessing, right?
I should have used a FOSS example, since Adobe is just bad in general (users saying the page has pop-ups, etc.).
All I see is "Ooooh look, we use AI!" which actually repels me quite a lot. The page leaves the impression that photoshop is a toy, not a tool.
Ok, let's get off Adobe for a second... here's a FOSS example: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
Easy to understand exactly what it does, screenshots are excellent. Surely, you can agree that this is better than how GIMP presents itself, right?
Great updated example and I look forward to hearing the arguments against this just like Adobe.
FOSS projects are often labors of love.
Nobody who isn't completely deranged loves marketing.
Me: Hello niece, what career will you embark on once college is over?
Niece: Marketing.
Me: [audibly] Ah, I see. [inaudibly] Where did our family go wrong???
I don't know man, I think the Photoshop homepage reeks of corpo crap, whereas the Gimp homepage does a good job at cleanly presenting the program in a quick way. Maybe I'm just used to FOSS, or already too allergic to corporate software, but going by the homepage design, my preference is obvious, there's not even a contest
I think my point was missed. I wasn't saying that GIMP should copy what Adobe does (I can't stand Adobe and their “business model” spyware bullshit.
My point was more to show that Adobe showcases the features of the software, so a potential user knows what it does without needing to go through the trouble of downloading it. It may not be what the user wants, and that's ok, at least they know!
But GIMP is so vague in their description and offers no insight to what the app does or looks like. There's no need to be mysterious.
Actually I would pick GIMP.
- Says what it is, an image editor.
- No popups and random interruptions.
- Not only AI editing examples which makes me thing the tool is AI only.
- An overview of the variety of major features it has rather than just AI editing.
- Links to helpful documentation rather than endless marketing pages that say nothing.
Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.
Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn't say what it does and there's no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there's no screenshots I'm rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don't really know what it is. Like, I wouldn't be interested in a car based on only a description, I'd have to see a picture of it too.
This is a frequent source of frustration for me, too. Can't even tell if it's cli or gui a lot of the time, based on the documentation. If I could just see what it looks like, I'd have a good idea right away of whether it might meet my needs.
The photoshop page doesn't even have a download link.
0/10 would not download.
Unless 3.0 has solved it, the gimp has a steep UI problem and a learning curve such that mass appeal on the website would be inappropriate anyway. I love it but I love it because I've been using it my whole life and know it very well. Foss in general struggles with useability due to a lot of hard to overcome problems - mainly, that by the time someone is ready to contribute to any given foss project, they're already intimately familiar with its foibles and probably have strong opinions about what UX elements are sacred cows and should not be fixed.
Well, it has solved it in large part, yes. Tablet pen buttons are correctly recognized on Windows at last, GTK3 allows panels to be dockable pretty much anywhere, the interface looks generally sleek.
Now perhaps you could specify what aspect of the UI you find problematic, otherwise it's hard to respond to such a vague statement. Imagine you're a developer, and you read a piece of feedback that says "the gimp has a steep UI problem". Where do you go from there ?
I mean, I could make a list of things I think are problems, but I've been using it since a bit after 9/11 so I dont think my guesses would represent new user experiences. I am mostly going off what people tell me when they try to learn it.
otherwise it's hard to respond to such a vague statement
I wasn't writing advice for the devs, I was making a general statement about why foss stuff doesn't tend to suit glitzy, highly marketable front facing stuff, using gimp as an example
I'm not involved with Gimp development, I've been watching it from the side, so I can't tell if there's an actual lack of contributions related to UX design -but so far I have only seen the public respond with the same sort of vague feedback : "the UI needs work". Unfortunately that's as unhelpful as it gets. Spending some time designing interface mockups, or writing up descriptions of how such and such feature should work, now that's helpful, and is something pretty much any user can do.
I was making a general statement about why foss stuff doesn’t tend to suit glitzy, highly marketable front facing stuff, using gimp as an example
Yea, I believe that's true. And it is always a resource problem, because with limited resources, developers focus on making the thing work first, look nice second
developers focus on making the thing work first, look nice someone else's problem
I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.
I know I'm being a bit facetious, here, but... Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can't really compete with Adobe's investors.
LOL. Brother, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they're going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn't have any screenshots?
Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.
You're right. I wasn't familiar with rawtherapee but just seeing that home page immediately clued me into the fact that it was some kind of image program. Didn't even need to read a single word.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I've wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would've just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Come to think of it, there have been a number of times where I’ve wondered about what a foss project does/looks like and I think a single screenshot would’ve just been a big help in understanding how it behaves.
Yes!! I'm glad I was able to illustrate my point better.
If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The "official website" wouldn't even cross their mind.
In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they're about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.
If a user doesn't even bother a bare , they're better off not downloading random executables from the internet.
The website isn't end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn't the 90s.
An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they're done.
This is why it's frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be "home base" for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.
App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.
The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.
Gimp doesn't have a marketing problem. Its well known its just that not many people like it. It is not a nice program to use. I think gimp3 fixes a lot of the janky ui but I'll have to try it out again
Yeah, every time I have ever tried Gimp, attempting to do anything felt like someone had purposefully been contrarian and made every operation work in the hardest and most confusing way.
And someone may say, "well, you just have to learn it!" OK, sure. Or I can use something that makes much more sense from the jump like Affinity Photo. (Yes, I know you have to pay for it, but it's worth it. Yes, I know not everyone has the money to do so.)
this is exactly my opinion on it. one of my main gripes was the text rendering. if i needed to change some text i basically had to redo all of the work on any shadow or stroke as well, not just correct a spelling mistake or whatever. very excited to check out the new version.
It is not a nice program to use.
Holy hell. I felt like that 20+ years ago when I started using it... I'm surprised that it never got better, from the sound of it.
Progress just has been painfully slow. It just now got the update it should've had back then
Hey, you look interested in becoming a marketing volunteer for GIMP. While GIMP is not as competitive in marketing as the others, you can help them if you want. 😎
I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit...
Majority of area in the world does not recognize it as negative thing.
Even for English, English itself is diverse language. Singaporean English, Indian English, Asian English, definitely not negative in all of them.
Forcing one standard of language as a universal is a bad precedent for language diversity.
I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit
Which is why I use Krita and recommend it to other people... telling them to use GIMP would get too many laughs and weird looks
the gimp one displays normally, while the adobe one shows a blank white page.
the choice is obvious
I couldn't agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It's systemic.
Which would you choose based on their website?
Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any "normal" person would not.
Yeah I admit I kind of prefer the Gimp site. Are you saying Lemmy isn’t an accurate random sample of normal people in reality?
Yes, Lemmy is dominated by people with a certain propensity towards tech. You can't use Lemmy users as a gauge for what is good UX I would say.
Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you're into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.
adobe's page otoh... Well after the first two popups, I gave up.
...
Alright, Second try and four popups later, I'm in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice
I think it's because marketing is expensive and marketing people know that corporations have money to throw at them, and the moment they lower their prices for a FOSS project, they might not get their old revenue when working for a company that can definitely pay what they ask.
We need some sort of FOSM (Free and Open Source Marketing) that helps FOSS projects based on some sort of queue and whoever has recent changes that needs marketing.
I think it’s because marketing is expensive
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "marketing". I'm not talking about spending tens of thousands of Facebook ads, or any ads, really.
A few screenshots on a product page would be more than enough for some projects. Highlight some key features. Generate interest.
It's really low effort stuff that makes a huge difference.
These are all excellent ways someone can contribute to a project. Our project website has a repo anything can contribute to to make changes, even the blog entries are statically generated pages.
Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven't been monetized yet.Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
That's highly debatable.
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there's no incentive to keep making it.
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Even from a purely practical standpoint, why not be clear and avoid wasting people's time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
I'm not suggesting that GIMP take out Facebook ads. But my god, would a few screenshots kill the project?
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there’s no incentive to keep making it.
Making a tool you or the company you work for need yourself, fun, learning, community, doing good, showing off, status, being remembered, (even if it's just in a circle of 10 people)...
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Irrelevant for the vast majority of open source projects, which will never be financially profitable.
why not be clear and avoid wasting people’s time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
Maybe because the volunteers working on the project in their free time are programmers, not marketers or good communicators?
Also, they aren't wasting anybody's time by creating useful software and giving it away for free.I realize I'm being confrontational towards you, but this mindset of demanding things from people who literally give away free stuff with no strings attached rubs me the wrong way, every single time. And this mindset is much too prevalent, even to the point of harassing, insulting and threatening open source devs for choices they make in their projects.
The devs owe you nothing. If you don't like what they do, simply don't use it.
There are other options out there, but they may come with a $23/month price tag.You are right. I just checked out gimp.org, and...IS there a single image of the software on that site?
If they want new users, asking them to blindly download software without even a look or maybe a video of new features is not it.
Other programs like Photoshop lose money though. FOSS devs should just quit as they're their own competition.
Is it because in Linux the UI is so customisable that there's no definitive 'look' to sell?
dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.
edit: i'm not talking specifically about gimp, my dudes.
"They" most of the times is solo devs and you can't blame them for that. GIMP does have flatpak, appimages, etc.
solo devs can spin windows executables and mac installer but not linux..?
I switched to Linux because there were almost no good open source apps on Windows. The comparison is not fair considering how drastically the parameters are changing.
Also a lot of solo devs do try to maintain some community repos.
I'm not trying to disagree but I haven't come across any projects that only wanted the Linux users to build. You can correct me.
i have found a couple before but havent bothered with them, i don't remember which they are but it sure peeved me off to be the only one told to "build it yourself"
That's false, not sure why you would say that. Literally just visit the download page
i see what you did there
I sure hope so
The fuck are you talking about. It's available in all the repositories
not all software.
compiling a program takes like 2 clicks dude